Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Yes correspondence relating to the representation should have been handed over. The email that Thirsty the Thug leaked should not have, given that the former lawyer no longer represents her, but it seems that Avenatti threatened him and he complied.

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

I don't recall claiming that post was the entirety of my legal analysis. We were simply discussing the likelihood that Thirsty the Thug made a threat.

Had I been asked to continue, I would have also said that he does not have a duty NOT to turn it over, would have pointed out that he already voluntarily gave it to Mueller, and that while there is a legal argument that he had no duty to give it to Thirsty that as a matter of legal strategy and tactics it would not make any sense to not give it to him because it is absolutely innocuous.

it would not make any sense to not give it to him because it is absolutely innocuous.

I am not convinced of that, and specifically I am not convinced because you type "absolutely". This is not a clear cut case and Trumps pronouncements on what he knew/did not know/authorised/did not authorise complicate the case.

Most corruption monitoring organizations measure how corrupt people believe their government to be, since it is often impossible to get factual data. In the past, the US has gotten very good marks, but the perception of corruption has dramatically increased from 2016 to 17:

I am not convinced of that, and specifically I am not convinced because you type "absolutely". This is not a clear cut case and Trumps pronouncements on what he knew/did not know/authorised/did not authorise complicate the case.

It's a toss up. Dow Jones heads down and Trump you lose.

Sorry, it is absolutely innocuous to the recipient, Stormy's former lawyer, who turned it over.

__________________"Created by the Legislature in 1927, the State Bar is an arm of the California Supreme Court, protecting the public by licensing and regulating attorneys."

Michael Avenatti, the attorney for adult film star Stormy Daniels in her lawsuit against President Donald Trump, reportedly called Hollywood Reporter writer Eriq Gardner an “*******,” and then demanded to speak with Gardner’s editor over an unflattering story.

A lawyer in a case involving Trump has "anger issues" what is the point?

I think Trump did have sex with Stormy Daniels.

I think that there are several takeaways. the first, he claims that he is fighting against "bullying" on behalf of his clients while bullying the press who write critical stories about him. Second, he is trying to manipulate press coverage by threatening journalists. Third, it goes to his motives and credibility. Fourth, he is actively trying to intervene in litigation relating to an on going criminal investigation that is far beyond Trump and his client having sex. Fifth, it shows his lack of competence.

__________________"Created by the Legislature in 1927, the State Bar is an arm of the California Supreme Court, protecting the public by licensing and regulating attorneys."

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

This means that it is impossible for Cohen to have paid Daniels out of Trump's money. It literally cannot be true based on Trump's own financial disclosure that there was any sort of escrow or slush fund. Cohen paid Daniels out of his own money 11 days before the election and was repaid by Trump (personally, it seems) only after Trump won.

I don't think reasonable people will view this as anything other than an in-kind campaign contribution. It's sort of possible to separate Trump the individual from Trump the campaign, but it's not reasonable given the timeframes.

This puts Cohen on shaky legal ground in several areas but shores up Trump's claim of personal innocence relating to this matter.

But since I see this as one thread of a huge, rolling conspiracy to commit money laundering over the course of decades, none of that may make a difference.

This means that it is impossible for Cohen to have paid Daniels out of Trump's money. It literally cannot be true based on Trump's own financial disclosure that there was any sort of escrow or slush fund. Cohen paid Daniels out of his own money 11 days before the election and was repaid by Trump (personally, it seems) only after Trump won.

I don't think reasonable people will view this as anything other than an in-kind campaign contribution. It's sort of possible to separate Trump the individual from Trump the campaign, but it's not reasonable given the timeframes.

This puts Cohen on shaky legal ground in several areas but shores up Trump's claim of personal innocence relating to this matter.

But since I see this as one thread of a huge, rolling conspiracy to commit money laundering over the course of decades, none of that may make a difference.

Does it say what date Trump paid Cohen?

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

This means that it is impossible for Cohen to have paid Daniels out of Trump's money. It literally cannot be true based on Trump's own financial disclosure that there was any sort of escrow or slush fund. Cohen paid Daniels out of his own money 11 days before the election and was repaid by Trump (personally, it seems) only after Trump won.

I don't think reasonable people will view this as anything other than an in-kind campaign contribution. It's sort of possible to separate Trump the individual from Trump the campaign, but it's not reasonable given the timeframes.

This puts Cohen on shaky legal ground in several areas but shores up Trump's claim of personal innocence relating to this matter.

But since I see this as one thread of a huge, rolling conspiracy to commit money laundering over the course of decades, none of that may make a difference.

Hmm it makes me wonder, what if Trump really is just an innocent patsy who never knew how everyone he surrounded himself with was corrupt? That seems incredibly unlikely but what would that say about him?

Trump team slips a footnote into his financial disclosure form, stating that Trump reimbursed Cohen for expenses incurred in 2016, in the amount between 100k-200k, which presumably include the 130k paid to settle Stormy Daniels' extortion attempts.

This means that it is impossible for Cohen to have paid Daniels out of Trump's money. It literally cannot be true based on Trump's own financial disclosure that there was any sort of escrow or slush fund. Cohen paid Daniels out of his own money 11 days before the election and was repaid by Trump (personally, it seems) only after Trump won.

I don't think reasonable people will view this as anything other than an in-kind campaign contribution. It's sort of possible to separate Trump the individual from Trump the campaign, but it's not reasonable given the timeframes.

This puts Cohen on shaky legal ground in several areas but shores up Trump's claim of personal innocence relating to this matter.

But since I see this as one thread of a huge, rolling conspiracy to commit money laundering over the course of decades, none of that may make a difference.

It begs the question, who actually paid that campaign donation silencing Daniels? The money in that LLC was from multiple sources.

Money laundering indeed if Cohen mixed his own home equity loan into the mix; which we still don't know if that actually happened or not given other sources for the slush fund surfaced after Cohen made the claim the money for Daniels came from his home equity loan.

__________________"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White

Avenatti has been successful in highlighting the murky nature of that $130,000 payment, but it's not clear he's advanced his stated goal to invalidate her contract. He hasn't won any significant point in court, and he can't truly take credit for the actions of New York prosecutors investigating Cohen. If the real strategy is to embarrass Trump and Cohen enough that they'll let her out of the hush deal, he hasn't achieved that yet either.

It begs the question, who actually paid that campaign donation silencing Daniels? The money in that LLC was from multiple sources.

Money laundering indeed if Cohen mixed his own home equity loan into the mix; which we still don't know if that actually happened or not given other sources for the slush fund surfaced after Cohen made the claim the money for Daniels came from his home equity loan.

Unless there is some evidence that money other than the home equity loan went into that account in October of 2016 (and there is of course none) this is speculation

__________________"Created by the Legislature in 1927, the State Bar is an arm of the California Supreme Court, protecting the public by licensing and regulating attorneys."

This means that it is impossible for Cohen to have paid Daniels out of Trump's money. It literally cannot be true based on Trump's own financial disclosure that there was any sort of escrow or slush fund. Cohen paid Daniels out of his own money 11 days before the election and was repaid by Trump (personally, it seems) only after Trump won.

I don't think reasonable people will view this as anything other than an in-kind campaign contribution. It's sort of possible to separate Trump the individual from Trump the campaign, but it's not reasonable given the timeframes.

This puts Cohen on shaky legal ground in several areas but shores up Trump's claim of personal innocence relating to this matter.

But since I see this as one thread of a huge, rolling conspiracy to commit money laundering over the course of decades, none of that may make a difference.

Avenatti has been successful in highlighting the murky nature of that $130,000 payment, but it's not clear he's advanced his stated goal to invalidate her contract. He hasn't won any significant point in court, and he can't truly take credit for the actions of New York prosecutors investigating Cohen. If the real strategy is to embarrass Trump and Cohen enough that they'll let her out of the hush deal, he hasn't achieved that yet either.

That's one way to look at it. Another is all the wanted attention he has brought her. I made this point before, but it deserves repeating. You can lose in court and still win and you can win in court and still lose.

Avenatti and Daniels have won already. They have stayed front and center for months. Her appearances fees have gone up as well a her bookings. She's never going to have to pay some huge penalty even if they lose which seems more and more unlikely.

He's been on TV so much, you would think he has his own show. Its been estimated that the two of them have received more than 175 million dollars of free promotion so far. Whether all that has happened to Trump and Cohen would have happened without Avenatti, we will never know.

The real winners are the American people.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

I'm just asking for a friend. But he's got into a bit of bother and wants to keep it quiet.

If I draw up a contract between him and his... um indiscretion...

It will still be enforceable as a contract between him and her if I pay her out of my money, and he knows nothing about it?

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

I'm just asking for a friend. But he's got into a bit of bother and wants to keep it quiet.

If I draw up a contract between him and his... um indiscretion...

It will still be enforceable as a contract between him and her if I pay her out of my money, and he knows nothing about it?

It can be if he ratifies it. Authority may be granted to an agent either by a precedent authorization or a subsequent ratification. (Civ.Code, § 2307.)" (Ripani v. Liberty Loan Corp. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 603, 611, 157 Cal.Rptr. 272.)

__________________"Created by the Legislature in 1927, the State Bar is an arm of the California Supreme Court, protecting the public by licensing and regulating attorneys."

“The complaint against attorney Michael J. Avenatti has been reviewed and forwarded to the Enforcement Unit for further investigation and prosecution, if warranted,” said the letter from the state bar, written by Supervising Attorney Anand Kumar and reviewed by Fox News.

Avid readers of the thread will recall that Avenatti claimed he was NOT under investigation in his recent pro hac vice motion. This new revelation agains calls into question whether he can represent Stormy Dniels.

GOP Motto: Kill the messenger, blame the victim, anything goes if it goes unseen, admit nothing, accuse of everything, truth is a tool of war. When all fails, cry and confess to God with your wife at your side (cursing you).

Or so the impression given so far from the GOP handling of any and all ethical and political due diligence; for example, this SD case. As time goes on, it's lies, money to fix lies, lies about money, lies about lies and money.... lies and more lies, money and more money.

Obama was worse. For <reasons>.

__________________Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.

Last week, several news outlets obtained financial records showing that Michael Cohen, President Trump’s personal attorney, had used a shell company to receive payments from various firms with business before the Trump Administration. In the days since, there has been much speculation about who leaked the confidential documents, and the Treasury Department’s inspector general has launched a probe to find the source. That source, a law-enforcement official, is speaking publicly for the first time, to The New Yorker, to explain the motivation: the official had grown alarmed after being unable to find two important reports on Cohen’s financial activity in a government database. The official, worried that the information was being withheld from law enforcement, released the remaining documents.

The payments to Cohen that have emerged in the past week come primarily from a single document, a “suspicious-activity report” filed by First Republic Bank, where Cohen’s shell company, Essential Consultants, L.L.C., maintained an account. The document detailed sums in the hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to Cohen by the pharmaceutical company Novartis, the telecommunications giant A.T. & T., and an investment firm with ties to the Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg.

The report also refers to two previous suspicious-activity reports, or SARs, that the bank had filed, which documented even larger flows of questionable money into Cohen’s account. Those two reports detail more than three million dollars in additional transactions—triple the amount in the report released last week. Which individuals or corporations were involved remains a mystery. But, according to the official who leaked the report, these SARs were absent from the database maintained by the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN. The official, who has spent a career in law enforcement, told me, “I have never seen something pulled off the system. . . . That system is a safeguard for the bank. It’s a stockpile of information. When something’s not there that should be, I immediately became concerned.” The official added, “That’s why I came forward.”

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.